I think your last post nailed it. In Cuba, the blacks were a substantial portion of the population, not just a minority, and there was an enormous mulatto population that spanned both the black and white communities. There really was no minority or majority, and no hard separation between the races. It was a great racial Venn diagram with a huge overlap.

I heard the adults in my family speculate that there would be racial violence in America because the black community could not forever endure the oppression they were subjected to–sooner or later they would revolt and the backlash from the whites would be ruthless. As it turns out, this never happened, and we got through the civil rights 1960s fairly peacefully. But I can see now, as you point out, that the backlash is still there, although it has manifested itself in a very different way–not as outright violence, but as ideological and cultural rigidity. Conservatives very often ARE racist, not necessarily because they have any inherent hatred or dislike of other races, but because since the Civil War race has been the boundary that split the country into competing cultural groups. Even if we mix racially (through immigration and intermarriage) so that we are all one color, there will still be two Americas divided along what used to be a color line that may be no longer visible, if not forgotten altogether.

There is historical precedent. The British Isles used to be Romano-Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, and England itself used to be split between an Anglo-Saxon peasantry and a Norman French aristocracy. Those ancient divisions still survive today in the class structure and economic distribution of wealth and of political power.

Its funny, I used to be pretty proud of my country for making the transition from segregation to integration relatively peacefully. But I can see now the process has not fully run its course. Its funny also that although many, if not most, of my white [Anglo] friends were not necessarily racist, they seemed to be completely unaware of this dynamic and how it affected them. This process was going on all around them, and they seemed to be cheerfully clueless of its origin or its source. The racism has morphed into cultural and religious differences, political and ideological ones, reinforced by economic class.

“They fear becoming a minority because they fear they will be treated as they have always treated minorities themselves.” We saw this happen in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and we see it happening all over Africa today. There’s no fundamental reason it can’t happen here too.

They fear becoming a minority because they fear they will be treated as they have always treated minorities themselves.

They fail to realize that their oppression of minorities, their violence against the less fortunate are a result of the conservative pathology- not ours.

What awaits them is not violence, or oppression, or an assault on their freedoms.

What awaits them is far worse…

Irrelevance.

An interview with the Author:

Interviewer: You know, you write that the erosion of these norms of democracy, these unwritten rules, which provide – the guardrails of democracy, in a way, that kind of protects us and keeps us on track – that they began to erode well before Donald Trump became president or was a candidate. When did it start?

LEVISKY: It’s difficult to find a precise date. But we look at the 1990s and, particularly, the rise of the Gingrich Republicans. Newt Gingrich really advocated and taught his fellow Republicans how to use language that begins to sort of call into question mutual toleration, using language like betrayal and sick and pathetic and antifamily and anti-American to describe their rivals.

And Gingrich also introduced an era or helped introduce – it was not just Newt Gingrich – an era of unprecedented, at least during that period in the century, hardball politics. So you saw a couple of major government shutdowns for the first time in the 1990s and, of course, the partisan impeachment of Bill Clinton, which was one of the first major acts – I mean, that is not forbearance. That is the failure to use restraint.

An opinion piece by the authors:

Donald Trump’s surprise victory was made possible not only by public disaffection but also by the Republican party’s failure to keep an extremist demagogue within its own ranks from gaining the nomination. How serious is the threat now? Many observers take comfort in our constitution, which was designed precisely to thwart and contain demagogues like Trump. Our Madisonian system of checks and balances has endured for more than two centuries. It survived the civil war, the great depression, the Cold War and Watergate.

Surely, then, it will be able to survive Trump.

We are less certain. Historically, our system of checks and balances has worked pretty well – but not, or not entirely, because of the constitutional system designed by the founders. Democracies work best – and survive longer – where constitutions are reinforced by unwritten democratic norms.

Two basic norms have preserved America’s checks and balances in ways we have come to take for granted: mutual toleration, or the understanding that competing parties accept one another as legitimate rivals, and forbearance, or the idea that politicians should exercise restraint in deploying their institutional prerogatives.

These two norms undergirded American democracy for most of the 20th century. Leaders of the two major parties accepted one another as legitimate and resisted the temptation to use their temporary control of institutions to maximum partisan advantage. Norms of toleration and restraint served as the soft guardrails of American democracy, helping it avoid the kind of partisan fight to the death that has destroyed democracies elsewhere in the world, including Europe in the 1930s and South America in the 1960s and 1970s.

Today, however, the guardrails of American democracy are weakening. The erosion of our democratic norms began in the 1980s and 1990s and accelerated in the 2000s. By the time Barack Obama became president, many Republicans in particular questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned forbearance for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.

Trump may have accelerated this process, but he didn’t cause it. The challenges facing American democracy run deeper. The weakening of our democratic norms is rooted in extreme partisan polarization – one that extends beyond policy differences into an existential conflict over race and culture. America’s efforts to achieve racial equality as our society grows increasingly diverse have fueled an insidious reaction and intensifying polarization. And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.

There are, therefore, reasons for alarm. Not only did Americans elect a demagogue in 2016, but we did so at a time when the norms that once protected our democracy were already coming unmoored.